Full report

Original page 1

NASA/DoD Aerospace Knowledge Diffusion Research Project NASA Technical Memorandum 110236 Report Number 43 The Technical Communication Practices of U.S. Aerospace Engineers and Scientists: Results of the Phase 1 Mail Survey- Manufacturing and Production Perspective Thomas E. Pinelli NASA Langley Research Center Hampton, Virginia Rebecca O. Barclay Knowledge Transfer International Portsmouth, Virginia John M. Kennedy Indiana University Bloomington, Indiana July 1996 National Aeronautics and Space Administration Department of Defense INDIANA UNIVERSITY

Original page 2

Original page 3

THE TECHNICAL COMMUNICATIONS PRACTICES OF U.S. AEROSPACE ENGINEERS AND SCIENTISTS: RESULTS OF THE PHASE 1 MAlL SURVEYB MANUFACTURING AND PRODUCTION PERSPECTIVE Thomas E. Pinelli, Rebecca O. Barclay, and John M. Kennedy ABSTRACT The U.S. government technical report is a primary means by which the results of federally funded research and development (R&D) are transferred to the U.S. aerospace industry. However, little is known about this information product in terms of its actual use, importance, and value in the transfer of federally funded R&D. Little is also known about the intermediary-based system that is used to transfer the results of federally funded R&D to the U.S. aerospace industry. To help establish a body of knowledge, the U.S. government technical report is being investigated as part of the NASA/DoD Aerospace Knowledge Diffusion Research Project. In this report, we summarize the literature on technical reports, present a model that depicts the transfer of federally funded aerospace R&D via the U.S. government technical report, and present the results of research that investigated aerospace knowledge diffusion vis-5-vis the technical communication practices of U.S. aerospace engineers and scientists who were members of the Society of Manufacturing Engineers. INTRODUCTION NASA and the DoD maintain scientific acquiring, processing, announcing, publishing, performed and government-sponsored research. and technical information (STI) systems for and transferring the results of government- Within both the NASA and DoD STI systems, the U.S. government technical report is considered a primary mechanism for transferring the results of this research to the U.S. aerospace community. However, McClure (1988) concludes that we actually know little about the role, importance, and impact of the technical report in the transfer of federally funded R&D because little empirical information about this product is available. We are examining the system(s) used to diffuse the results of federally funded aerospace R&D as part of the NASA/DoD Aerospace Knowledge Diffusion Research Project. This project investigates, among other things, the information-seeking behavior of U.S. aerospace engineers and scientists, the factors that influence the use of STI, and the role played by U.S. government technical reports in the diffusion of federally funded aerospace STI (Pinelli, Kennedy, and Barclay, 1991; PineUi, Kennedy, Barclay, and White, 1991). The results of this investigation could (1) advance the development of practical theory, (2) contribute to the design and development of aerospace information systems, and (3) have practical implications for transferring the results of federally funded aerospace R&D to the U.S. aerospace community. The project fact sheet is Appendix A.

Original page 4

In this report,we summarize the literature on technical reports, provide a model that depicts the transfer of federally funded aerospace R&D through the U.S. government technical report, and present theresults of the Phase 1 mail survey that focused on the technical communication practices of U.S. aerospace engineers and scientists. We summarize the findings of the Phase 1 mail survey in terms of the technical communication practices of U.S. aerospace engineers and scientists who were members of the Society of Manufacturing Engineers. THE U.S. GOVERNMENT TECHNICAL REPORT Although they have the potential for increasing technological innovation, productivity, and economic competitiveness, U.S. government limitations in the existing transfer mechanism. technical reports may not be utilized because of According to Ballard, et al., (1986), the current system "virtually guarantees that much of the Federal investment in creating STI will not be paid back in terms of tangible products and innovations." They further state that "a more active and coordinated role in STI transfer is needed at the Federal level if technical reports are to be better utilized." Characteristics of Technical Reports The definition of the technical report varies because the report serves different roles in communication within and between organizations. The technical report has been defined etymologically, according to report content and method (U.S. Department of Defense, 1964); behaviorally, according to the influence on the reader (Ronco, et al., 1964); and rhetorically, according to the function of the report within Stevenson, 1976). The boundaries of technical a system for communicating STI (Mathes and report literature are difficult to establish because of wide variations in the content, purpose, and audience being addressed. The nature of the report -- whether it is informative, analytical, or assertive -- contributes to the difficulty. Fry (1953) points out that technical reports are heterogenous, appearing in many shapes, sizes, layouts, and bindings. According to Smith (1981), "Their formats vary; they might be brief (two pages) or lengthy (500 pages). They appear as microfiche, computer printouts or vugraphs, and often they are loose leaf (with periodic changes that need to be inserted) or have a paper cover, and often contain foldouts. They slump on the shelf, their staples or prong fasteners snag other documents on the shelf, and they are not neat." Technical reports may exhibit some or all of the following characteristics (Gibb and Phillips, 1979; Subramanyam, 1981): • Publication is not through the publishing • Readership/audience is usually limited. • Distribution may be limited or restricted. trade. 2

Original page 5

• Content may include statistical data, catalogs, directions, design criteria, conference papers and proceedings, literature reviews, or bibliographies. • Publication may involve a variety of printing and binding methods. The SATCOM report (National Academy of Sciences - National Academy of Engineering, 1969) lists the following characteristics of the technical report: • It is written for an individual or organization that has the right to require such reports. • It is basically a stewardship report to some agency that has funded the research being reported. • It permits prompt dissemination of data results on a typically flexible distribution basis. • It can convey the total research story, including exhaustive exposition, detailed tables, ample illustrations, and full discussion of unsuccessful approaches. History and Growth of the U.S. Government The development of the [U.S. government] nicating the results of R&D, according to Godfrey the establishment of the U.S. Office of Scientific Technical Report technical report as a major means of commuand Redman (1973), dates back to 1941 and Research and Development (OSRD). Further, the growth of the U.S. government technical report coincides with the expanding role of the Federal government in science and technology during the post World War II era. However, U.S. government technical reports have existed for several decades. The Bureau of Mines Reports of Investigation (Redman, 1965/66), the Professional Papers of the United States Geological Survey, and the Technological Papers of the National Bureau of Standards (Auger, 1975) are early examples of U.S. government technical reports. Perhaps the first U.S. government publications officially created to document the results of federally funded (U.S.) R&D were the technical reports first published by the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics (NACA) in 1917. Auger (1975) states that "the history of technical report literature in the U.S. coincides almost entirely with the development of aeronautics, the aviation industry, and the creation of the NACA, which issued its first report in 1917." In her study, Information Transfer in Engineering, Shuchman (1981) reports that 75% of the engineers she surveyed used technical reports; that technical reports were important to engineers doing applied work; and that aerospace engineers, more than any other group of engineers, referred to technical reports. However, in many of these studies, including Shuchman's, it is often unclear whether U.S. government technical reports, non-U.S, government technical reports, or both are included (Pinelli, 1991a). The U.S. government technical report is a primary means by which the results of federally funded R&D are made available to the scientific community and are added to the literature of

Original page 6

science and technology (President's Special Assistant for Science and Technology, 1962). McClure (1988) points out that "although the [U.S.] government technical report has been variously reviewed, compared, and contrasted, there is no real knowledge base regarding the role, production, use, and importance [of this information product] in terms of accomplishing this task." Our analysis of the literature supports the following conclusions reached by McClure: • The body of available knowledge is simply inadequate and noncomparable to determine the role that the U.S. government technical funded R&D. • Further, most of the available knowledge report plays in transferring the results of federally is largely anecdotal, limited in scope and dated, and unfocused in the sense that it lacks a conceptual framework. • The available knowledge does not lend itself to developing "normalized" answers to questions regarding U.S. government technical reports. THE TRANSFER OF FEDERALLY FUNDED AEROSPACE R&D AND THE U.S. GOVERNMENT TECHNICAL REPORT Three paradigms -- appropriability, dissemination, and diffusion -- have dominated the transfer of federally funded (U.S.) R&D (Ballard, et al., 1989; Williams and Gibson, 1990). Whereas variations of them have been tried within different agencies, overall Federal (U.S.) STI transfer activities continue to be driven by a "supply-side," dissemination model. The Appropriability Model The appropriability model emphasizes the production of knowledge by the Federal government that would not otherwise be produced by the private sector and competitive market pressures to promote the use of that knowledge. This model emphasizes the production of basic research as the driving force behind technological development and economic growth and assumes that the Federal provision of R&D will be rapidly assimilated by the private sector. Deliberate transfer mechanisms and intervention by information intermediaries are viewed as unnecessary. Appropriability stresses the supply (production) of knowledge in sufficient quantity to attract potential users. Good technologies, according to this model, sell themselves and offer clear policy recommendations regarding Federal priorities for improving technological development and economic growth. This model incorrectly assumes acquired and used by the private sector, ignores that the results of federally funded R&D will be the fact that most basic research is irrelevant to technological innovation, and dismisses the process of technological innovation within the firm. The Dissemination Model The dissemination model emphasizes the need to transfer information to potential users and embraces the belief that the production of quality knowledge is not sufficient to ensure its fullest 4

Original page 7

use. Linkage mechanisms,such as information intermediaries, are needed to identify useful knowledge and to transfer it to potential users. This model assumes that if these mechanisms are available to link potential users with knowledge users to determine what knowledge is available, producers, then better opportunities exist for acquire it, and apply it to their needs. The strength of this model rests on the recognition that STI transfer and use are critical elements of the process of technological innovation. Its weakness lies in the fact that it is passive, for it does not take users into consideration except when they enter the system and request assistance. The dissemination model employs one-way, source-to-user transfer procedures that are seldom responsive in the user context. User requirements of information products and services. The Knowledge Diffusion Model The knowledge diffusion model is grounded are seldom known or considered in the design in theory and practice associated with the diffusion of innovation and planned change research and the clinical models of social research and mental health. Knowledge diffusion emphasizes "active" intervention as opposed to dissemination and access; stresses intervention and reliance on interpersonal communications as a means of identifying and removing interpersonal barriers between users and producers; and assumes that knowledge production, transfer, and use are equally important components of the R&D process. This approach also emphasizes the link between producers, transfer agents, and users and seeks to develop user-oriented mechanisms (e.g., products and services) specifically tailored to the needs and circumstances of the user. It makes the assumption that the results of federally funded R&D will be under utilized unless they are relevant to users and ongoing relationships are developed among users and producers. The problem with the knowledge diffusion model is that (1) it requires a large Federal role and presence and (2) it runs contrary to the dominant assumptions of established Federal R&D policy. Although U.S. technology policy relies on a "dissemination-oriented" approach to STI transfer, other industrialized nations, such as Germany and Japan, are adopting "diffusion-oriented" policies which increase the power to absorb and employ new technologies productively (Branscomb, 1992; Branscomb, 1991). The Transfer of (U.S.) Federally-Funded Aerospace R&D A model depicting the transfer of federally government technical report appears in figure 1. funded aerospace R&D through the U.S. The model is composed of two parts -- the informal that relies on collegial contacts and the formal that relies on surrogates, information producers, and information intermediaries to complete the "producer to user" transfer process. When U.S. government (i.e., NASA) technical reports are published, the initial or primary distribution is made to libraries and technical information centers. Copies are sent to surrogates for secondary and subsequent distribution. A limited number of copies are set aside to be used by the author for the "scientist-to-scientist" exchange of information at the collegial level. Surrogates serve as technical report repositories or clearinghouses for the producers and include the Defense Technical Information Center 5 (DTIC), the NASA Center for Aero Space

Original page 8

Surrogates Producers • DTIC • DoD • CAB • DROLS • NASA •CASI • DoD/NASA • STAR contractors • RECON & grantees •NTIS • GRA &l • NTIS file Formal Informal (Collegial) Information Users Intermediaries • Aerospace • Librarians eng,neers and scientists • Gatekeepers • Aerospace • Linking engmeenng agents faculty and students • Knowledge brokers Figure 1. The U.S. Government Technical Report in a Model Depicting the Dissemination Information (CASI), and the National Technical have created a variety of technical report Awareness Bibliographies), STAR (Scientific of Federally Funded Aerospace R&D. Information Service (NTIS). These surrogates announcement journals such as CAB (Current and Technical Aerospace Reports), and GRA&/ (Government Reports Announcement and Index) and computerized retrieval systems such as DROLS (Defense RDT&E Online System), RECON (REsearch CONnection), and NTIS On-line that permit online access to technical report data bases. Information intermediaries are, in large part, librarians and technical information specialists in academia, government, and industry. Those representing the producers serve as what McGowan and Loveless (1981) describe as "knowledge brokers" or "linking agents." Information intermediaries connected with users act, according to Allen (1977), as "technological entrepreneurs" or "gatekeepers." The more "active" the intermediary, the more effective the transfer process becomes (Goldhor and Lund, 1983). Active intermediaries move information from the producer to the user, often utilizing interpersonal (i.e., face-to-face) communication in the process. Passive information intermediaries, on the other hand, "simply array information for the taking, relying on the initiative of the user to request or search out the information that may be needed" (Eveland, 1987). The overall problem with the total Federal STI system is that "the present system for transferring the.results of federally funded STI is passive, fragmented, and unfocused;" effective knowledge transfer is hindered by the fact that the Federal government "has no coherent or systematically designed approach to transferring the results of federally funded R&D to the user" (Ballard, et al., 1986). In their study of issues and options in Federal STI, Bikson and her colleagues (1984) found that many of the interviewees believed "dissemination activities were afterthoughts, undertaken without serious commitment by Federal agencies whose primary 6

Original page 9

concerns were with [knowledge] production and not with knowledge transfer;" therefore, "much of what has been learned about [STI] and knowledge transfer has not been incorporated into federally supported information transfer activities." Problematic to the informal part of the system is that knowledge users can learn from collegial contacts only what those contacts happen to know. Ample evidence supports the claim that no one researcher can know about or keep up with all the research in his/her area(s) of interest. Like other members of the scientific community, aerospace engineers and scientists are faced with the problem of too much information to know about, to keep up with, and to screen. Further, information is becoming more interdisciplinary in nature and more international in scope. Two problems exist with the formal part of the system. First, the formal part of the system employs one-way, source-to-user transmission. The problem with this kind of transmission is that such formal one-way, "supply side" transfer procedures do not seem to be responsive to the user context (Bikson, et al., 1984). Rather, these efforts appear to start with an information system into which the users' requirements are retrofit (Adam, 1975). The consensus of the findings from the empirical research is that interactive, two-way communications are required for effective information transfer (Bikson, et al., 1984). Second, the formal part relies heavily on information intermediaries to complete the knowledge transfer process. However, a strong methodological base for measuring or assessing the effectiveness of the information intermediary is lacking (Beyer and Trice, 1982). In addition, empirical data on the effectiveness of information knowledge transfer are sparse and inconclusive. intermediaries and the role(s) they play in The impact of information intermediaries is likely to be strongly conditional and limited to a specific institutional context. According to Roberts and Frohman (1978), most Federal approaches to knowledge utilization have been ineffective in stimulating the diffusion the numerous Federal STI programs are "highest of technological innovation. They claim that in frequency and expense yet lowest in impact" and that Federal "information dissemination activities have led to little documented knowledge utilization." Roberts and Frohman also note that "governmental programs start to encourage utilization of knowledge only after the R&D results have been generated" rather than during the idea development phase of the innovation process. David (1986), Mowery (1983), and Mowery and Rosenberg (1979) conclude that successful [Federal] technological innovation rests more with the transfer and utilization of knowledge than with its production. THE INFORMATION-SEEKING The information-seeking behavior of engineers BEHAVIOR OF ENGINEERS and scientists has been variously studied by information and social scientists, the earliest studies having been undertaken in the late 1960s (Pinelli, 1991b). The results of these studies have not accumulated to form a significant body of knowledge that can be used to develop a general theory regarding the information-seeking behavior of engineers and scientists. The difficulty in applying the results of these studies has 7

Original page 10

beenattributedto the lack of a unifying theory, a standardized methodology, and the common definitions (Rohde, 1986). Despite the fact that numerous "information use" studies have been conducted, the information-seeking behavior of engineers and information use in engineering are neither broadly known nor well understood. There are a number of reasons (Berul, et al., 1965): (1) many of the studies were conducted for narrow or specific purposes in unique environments such as experimental laboratories; (2) many, if not most, of them focused on scientists exclusively or engineers working in a research environment; especially engineers working in manufacturing (3) few studies have concentrated on engineers, and production; (4) from an information use standpoint, some engineering disciplines have yet to be studied; (5) most of the studies have concentrated on the users' use of information packages such as professional journals rather in terms of a library and/or specific information than how users produce, transfer, and use information; and (6) many of the studies, as previously stated, were not methodologically sophisticated and few included testable hypotheses or valid procedures for testing the study's hypotheses. Further, we know very little about the diffusion of knowledge in specific communities such as aerospace. In the past 25 years, few studies have been devoted to understanding the information environment in which aerospace engineers and scientists work, the information-seeking behavior of aerospace engineers and scientists, and the factors that influence the use of federally funded aerospace STI. Presumably, the results of such studies would have implications for current and future aerospace STI systems and for making decisions regarding the transfer and use of federally funded aerospace STI. RESULTS OF THE PHASE 1 MAIL SURVEY-- MANUFACTURING AND PRODUCTION PERSPECTIVE This research was conducted as a Phase 1 activity of the NASA/DoD Aerospace Knowledge Diffusion Research Project. Survey participants consisted of U.S. aerospace engineers and scientists who were members of the Society of Manufacturing Engineers. All of the members in the sample were employed in the industry portion of U.S. aerospace. The survey instrument appears as Appendix B. The Survey The questionnaire used in this study was jointly prepared by the project team and representatives from the Indiana University Center for Survey Research (CSR). The survey was pretested on a group of aerospace engineers and scientists across the country. The Indiana University staff prepared an envelope for each individual that contained an l 1-page questionnaire and the cover letter. In March 1996, a sample of 500 members of the Society of Manufacturing Engineers was selected for the study. The envelopes were packaged and mailed to the NASA Langley Research Center (LaRC) on March 28, 1996, for mailing. The envelopes were mailed from NASA LaRC on April 4, 1996. 8

Original page 11

BetweenApril 8, 1996andApril 30, 1996,261 usablequestionnaireswere returned. Thirty sevenquestionnaireswerereturnedasunusablebecause(1) the recipientwas no longerworking in aerospace,(2) the recipient was not working in manufacturingor production, or (3) the recipienthad retired. By April 30, 1996, the survey cut-off date, 261 usable questionnaires had been received; the adjusted completion rate for the survey was 60%. Data Collection and Analysis A variation of Flanagan's (1954) critical incident technique was used to guide data collection. According to Lancaster (1978), the theory behind the critical incident technique is that it is much easier for people to recall accurately what they did on a specific occurrence or occasion than it is to remember what they do in general. Respondents were asked to categorize the most important job-related projects, task, or problem they had worked on in the past 6 months. The categories included (1) research, (2) design, (3) development, (4) manufacturing, (5) production, (6) quality assurance/control, (7) computer applications, (8) management, and (9) other. Respondents were also asked to rate the amount of technical uncertainty and complexity they faced when they started their most important project, task, or problem. Technical uncertainty and complexity were measured on 5-point scales (1.0 = little uncertainty; 5.0 = great uncertainty; 1.0 = little complexity, 5.0 = great complexity). Survey participants were also asked to indicate whether they worked alone or with others in completing/solving the most important job-related project, task, or problem they had worked on in the past 6 months. Technical uncertainty, complexity, and the importance of federally funded aerospace R&D were measured using ordinal scales. Hours spent communicating and the number of journal articles, conference-meeting papers, and U.S. government technical reports used were measured on an interval scale. Use of formal information sources and federally funded aerospace R&D were measured using a nominal scale. Data analysis was based on 261 responses, the total number of usable questionnaires received by the established cut-off date. 9

Original page 12

DESCRIPTIVE FINDINGS Survey demographics for the 261 respondents appear in table 1. The following "composite" participant profile was developed for the respondents: works in industry (100%), has a bachelor's degree (44.1%), has an average of 17.9 yeats of work experience in aerospace, was educated as and works as an engineer (69.2%, 67.3%), works in design/development (33.3%), and is male (97.3%). Project, Task, Problem Survey participants were asked to categorize the most important job-related project, task, or problem they had worked on in the past 6 months. The categories and responses are listed in table 2. A majority of the job-related projects, tasks, and problems (34%) were categorized as design/development. About 29% and 15% of the job-related projects, tasks, and problems were categorized as manufacturing/production and quality assurance/control, respectively. Most respondents (79%) worked with others (did not work alone) in completing their most important job-related project, task, or problem. Number of Groups and Group Size. On average, respondents worked with 3.5 groups; each group contained an average of 6.2 members (table 2). A majority of respondents (59.6%) performed engineering duties while working on their most important job-related project, task, or problem. About 26% performed management duties. Project, Task, Problem Complexity and Uncertainty. Respondents were asked to rate the overall complexity of their most important job-related project, task, or problem. The mean complexity score was 3.9 (of a possible 5.00). Respondents were also asked to rate the amount of technical uncertainty they faced when they started their most important project, task, or problem. The average (mean) technical uncertainty score was 3.3 (of a possible 5.00). Correlation coefficients (Pearson's r) were calculated to compare (1) the overall "level of project, task, or problem complexity" and "technical uncertainty" and (2) the level of "project, task, or problem complexity by category" and "technical uncertainty." The correlation coefficients appear in table 3. Positive and significant correlations were found for both comparisons. These findings support the hypothesis that there is a (positive) relationship between technical uncertainty and complexity. Project, Task1 or Problem and Information following information sources used to complete problem: (1) used personal stores of technical organization, (3) spoke with colleagues outside Use. Respondents were given a list of the their most important job-related project, task, or information, (2) spoke with coworkers inside the of the organization, (4) and (5) used literature resources in the organization's library, and (6) spoke with a librarian/technical information specialist. They were asked to identify the steps they followed to obtain needed information by 10

Original page 13

Table 1. Survey [n - 261] Demographics Do You Currently Work In: Industry Is Any Of Your Work Funded By The Federal Government: Yes No Your Highest Level Of Education: No Degree Bachelor's Degree Master's Degree Doctorate Other Type Of Degree Your Years In Aerospace: 0 years 1 Through 5 Years 6 Through 10 Years 11 Through 20 Years 21 Through 40 Years 41 Or More Years Mean = 17.9 Years Median = 16.0 Years Your Education: Engineer Scientist Other Your Primary Duties: Engineer Scientist Other Is Your Work Best Classified As: Quality Control/Assurance Research Administration/Management Design/Development Manufacturing/Production Service/Maintenance Marketiug/Sales Hight Test Other Your Gender: Female Male 11 Demographics Percentage Number 100.0 261 45.3 107 54.7 129 20.7 54 44.1 115 23.4 61 3.4 9 8.4 22 1.5 4 6.1 16 18.0 47 42.5 111 31.0 81 0.8 2 69.2 180 6.9 18 23.8 62 67.3 175 1.5 4 31.2 81 16.9 44 4.2 11 11.1 29 33.3 87 27.2 71 0.8 2 1.1 3 1.1 10 3.8 3 2.7 7 97.3 254

Original page 14

Table 2. Project, Task, or Problem Categorization Factors Categories Of Project, Task, Or Problem: Quality Assurance/Control Research Design/Development Manufacturing/Production Computer Applications Management Other Worked On Project, Task Or Problem: Alone With Others Mean Number Of Groups = 3.5 Mean Number of People/Group = 6.2 Nature Of Duties Performed: Engineering Science Management Other Percentage Number 14.6 38 4.6 12 34.2 89 29.2 76 4.2 11 9.6 25 3.5 9 21.5 56 78.5 204 59.6 155 1.5 4 26.2 68 12.7 33 Table 3. Correlation of Project Complexity and Technical Uncertainty by Type of Project, Task, or Problem Complexity - Uncertainty Correlation Overalla Quality,_.ssurancelcontrol Research Design/Development Manufacturing/Production Management Computer Applications Other n r 259 0.24** 38 0.00 11 0.40 89 0.31"* 76 0.08 25 0.40* 11 -0.08 9 0.73* a Overall mean complexity (uncertainty) score = 3.9 (3.3) out of a possible 5.00. * r values are statistically significant at p < 0.05. ** r values are statistically significant at p -: 0.01. sequencing these items (e.g., #1,#2,#3,#4, #5, and #6). They were instructed to place an "X" beside the step(s) (i.e., information source) they did not use. The results appear in table 4. 12

Original page 15

Table 4. Information SourcesUsedto Solve Project,Task,or Problem Used Used Used Used Used Used Not First Second Third Fourth Fifth Sixth Used InformationSource % % Personal Store Of Technical Information 65.5 13.6 Spoke With Coworker(s) Inside The Organization 21.4 58.5 Spoke With Colleagues Outside Of The Organization 6.2 15.4 Used Literature Resources In My Organization's Library 6.4 5.0 Spoke With A Librarian/ Technical Information Specialist 1.4 3.2 !Searched (Or Had Someone Search For Me) An Electronic (Bibliographic) Data Base 5.0 Use of Federally Funded Aerospace R&D. % % % % % 11.1 5.1 0.4 0.9 3.4 9.8 2.6 3.0 1.3 3.4 38.3 12.3 5.7 3.5 18.5 17.3 17.3 10.9 4.5 38.6 7.4 8.8 6.5 6.5 66.2 9.6 16.5 9.6 2.3 56.9 About 33% (86) of the participants used the results of federally funded aerospace R&D in their work. Respondents who used federally funded aerospace R&D in their work were given a listof 12 sources. They were asked to indicate how they learned about the results of federally funded aerospace R&D from each of the 12 sources (Table 5). Of the six most frequently used sources, half involve interpersonal communication and half are formal communication. Two of the five "federal initiatives" (i.e., NASA and DoD technical reports and NASA and DoD contacts) was among the six sources used most frequently to learn about the results of federally funded aerospace R&D. However, three of the five "federal initiatives" were used least often to learn about the results of federally funded aerospace R&D. The respondents who reported using the results of federally funded aerospace R&D were asked if they used these results in completing the most important job-related project, task, or problem they had worked on in the past 6 months. "yes" were asked about the importance of these The 24% (61) of respondents who answered results in completing the project, task, or problem. A 5-point scale (1.0 = not at all important, 5.0 = very important) was used to measure importance. The mean importance rating was 3.8. About 62% of those who used federally funded R&D (38 respondents) responded with an importance rating of "4" or "5". About 51% (30) of those who used the results of federally funded aerospace R&D in completing their most important job-related project, task, or problem indicated that the results were published in either a NASA or DoD technical report. 13

Original page 16

Table 5. Sources the Results of Federally Source 1. Professional And Society Journals 2. Coworkers Inside My Organization 3. Trade Journals Reports 72.2 39 4. NASA And DoD Technical Used to Learn About Funded Aerospace R&D Percentage Number 72.7 40 81.0 47 63.5 33 Organization 61.1 33 5. Colleagues Outside My 6. NASA And DoD Contacts 7. Professional And Society Meetings Bases 58.5 31 8. Searches of Computerized Data 9. NASA And DoD Sponsored Conferences And Workshops 52.9 27 50.0 27 41.2 21 10. Visits To NASA And DoD Facilities 25.0 13 11. Publications Such As STAR 12. Librarians Inside My Organization 27.5 14 32.1 17 The respondents who used the results of federally funded aerospace R&D in completing their most important job-related project, task, or problem were asked which problems, if any, they encountered in using these results (see table 6). Respondents were given a list of six problems from which to choose. About 56% indicated that the "time and effort it took to locate the results" was a problem. About 52% reported that the "time and effort it took to physically obtain the results" was a problem. About 25% indicated that "accuracy, precision, and reliability of the results" was a problem, and about 25% reported that "distribution limitations or security restrictions" constituted a problem. About 16%/16% indicated that "organization or format"P'legibility or readability" of the results Technical Communications Practices constituted a problem. Data which describe factors concerning the production and use of technical information are summarized in table 7. Participants were asked to indicate the importance of communicating technical information effectively (e.g., producing written materials or oral discussions). A 5-point scale was used to measure importance (1.0 = not at all important; 5.0 = very important). Importance and Time Spent. The mean importance rating was 4.6; approximately 92% of respondents indicated that it was important to communicate technical information effectively. Respondents were also asked to report the total number of hours per week they had spent communicating technical information, both in written form and orally, during the past 6 months. Respondents reported spending slightly less time on producing written materials (an average of 14

Original page 17

Table 6. ProblemsRelatedto Use of Federally-FundedAerospaceR&D Problem Time And Effort To LocateResults Time And Effort To Obtain Results Accuracy, PrecisionAnd Reliability Of Results Distribution Limitations Or Security RestrictionsOf Results OrganizationOr FormatOf Results Legibility Or ReadabilityOf Results 11.0 hours/week) than oral discussions (an average Percentage Number 55.6 35 52.4 33 25.4 16 25.4 16 15.9 10 15.9 10 of 12.0 hours/week). Approximately 72% of the respondents indicated that the amount of time they spent communicating technical information to others had increased over the past 5 years. About 5% indicated a decrease in the amount of time spent communicating technical information to others over the same period. Respondents were also asked to report the total number of hours per week spent working with technical information, both written and oral, received from others in the past 6 months (see table 7). Respondents reported spending slightly more time working with written technical information received from others (an average of 9.9 hours/week) than with technical information received orally from others (an average of 7.6 hours/week). Approximately 70% of the respondents indicated that, as they have advanced professionally, the amount of time spent working with technical information received from others had increased. About 8% indicated a decrease in the amount of time they spent working with technical information received from others. Collaborative Writing. An attempt was made to determine the amount of writing in U. S. aerospace that is collaborative. Survey participants were asked to indicate the percentage of their written technical communications in the past 6 months that involved writing alone, with one other person, with a group of two to five people, and with a group of more than five people. About 35% of the survey respondents indicated that 100% of the written technical communications they prepared involved writing alone. [The mean percent was ('X = 74.1) and the median percent was 87.5.] About 52% indicated that their written technical communications involved writing with one other person. [The mean percent was ('X = 10.7) and the median percent was 5.0.] About 43% indicated that their written technical communications involved writing with a group of two to five people. [The mean percent was (X 9.9) and the median percent was 0.0.] About 23% indicated that their written technical communications involved writing with a group of more than five people. [The mean percent was (X = 5.3) and the median percent was 0.0.] 15

Original page 18

Table 7. TechnicalCommunications: Importance,Time Spent,and ChangeOver Time Communication And Receipt Of Information Importance Of Communicating Technical Information: Unimportant Neither important Nor Unimportant Important Mean = 4.6 Median = 5.0 Tune Spent Producing Written Technical Information: 0 Hours Per Week 1 Through 5 Hours Per Week 6 Through 10 Hours Per Week 11 Through 15 Hours Per Week 16 Through 20 Hours Per Week 21 Or More Hours Per Week Mean = lI.0 Median = 10.0 Ttme Spent Communicating Technical Information Orally: 0 Hours Per Week 1 Through 5 Hours Per Week 6 Through 10 Hours Per Week 11 Through 15 Hours Per Week 16 Through 20 Hours Per Week 21 Or More Hours Per Week Mean = I2.0 Median = 10.0 Change Over Past 5 Years In The Amount Of Time Spent Communicating Technical Information To Others: Increased Stayed The Same Decreased Tune Spent Working With Written Technical Information Received From Others: 0 Hours Per Week 1 Through 5 Hours Per Week 6 Through 10 Hours Per Week 11 Through 15 Horns Per Week 16 Through 20 Hours Per Week 21 Or More Hours Per Week Mean = 9.9 Median = 7.5 Percentage Number 3.9 10 3.9 10 92.2 24O 3.1 8 30.7 80 32.6 85 10.3 27 14.6 38 8.8 23 5.0 13 21.5 56 37.2 97 11.9 31 16.9 44 7.7 20 71.5 186 23.1 60 5.4 14 1.5 4 43.7 114 29.5 77 9.2 24 7.7 20 8.4 22 Tune Spent Working with Technical Information Received Orally From Others: 0 Hours Per Week 1 Through 5 Hours Per Week 6 Through I0 Hours Per Week 11 Through 15 Hours Per Week 16 Through 20 Hours Per Week 21 Or More Hours Per Week Mean = 7.6 Median = 5.0 8.0 21 50.6 132 27.6 72 6.5 17 5.0 13 2.3 6 Professional Advancement And Changes In Amount Of Tune Spent Working With Technical Information Received From Others: Increased Stayed The Same Decreased 69.6 181 22.3 58 8.1 21 16

Original page 19

Survey participantswho write collaborativelywere askedif they find writing as part of a group more or less productive (i.e., producing more written products or producing better written products) than writing alone. The responses appear in table 8. Overall, slightly more of the respondents indicated that writing with a group 48% indicated that a group is more productive is more productive than writing alone. About and about 34% indicated that a group is less productive. About 18% indicated that a group is about as productive as writing alone. Table 8. Influence of Group Participation on Writing Productivity How Productive Alone 47.6 79 A Group Is More Productive Than Writing Alone 18.1 30 A Group Is About As Productive As Writing A Group Is Less Productive Than Writing Alone Percentage Number 34.3 57 Survey participants were asked if, during that 6 month period, they had worked with the same group of people when producing written technical communications. About 60% (99 respondents) indicated "yes" they had worked with the same group, and about 40% indicated that they had worked with various groups. Of those who indicated that they had worked in the same group, these respondents were asked how many respondents) indicated a group size of 2-5 people people were in the group. About 74% (73 and about 15% (15 respondents) indicated a group size of 6-10 people. The mean number of people in the group was 3.9 and the median was 3.5. Those 66 respondents who indicated "no," meaning that they did not work with the same group during the past 6 months, were asked with about how many groups they had worked. About 14% (9 respondents) reported working with 2 groups, about 41% (26 respondents) reported working with 3 groups, about 13% (8 respondents) reported working with 4 groups, about 11% (7 respondents) reported working with 5 groups, and about 13% (8 respondents) reported working with 6-10 groups. The average (mean) number of groups was X = 4.1 and the median number of groups was 3.0. The number of people in each group varied. About 76% of the respondents reported working with a group of 2-5 people and about 18% reported working with a group of 6-10 people. The average (mean) number of people per group was ,X = 4.7 and the median number of people per group was 4.0. Technical Information Products Produced. Survey participants were given a list of technical information products. They were asked to indicate the number of these products they had written or otherwise prepared in the past 6 months and if those products had been written or prepared as part of a group. The 10 most frequently produced (alone) technical information products appear in table 9. Survey participants were also asked to indicate the number of these products they had written or otherwise prepared in the past 6 months as part of a group. The 10 most fi'equently prepared (as part of a group) technical information products 17 appear in table 10. Data shown in table 10

Original page 20

includethe number of products produced (mean numbers of people per group. and median) and the average (mean and median) Table 9. Technical Information Products Written or Produced Alone in the Past 6 Months Products Memoranda Letters Drawings/Specifications Technical Manuals Audio/Visual Materials In-house Technical Reports Computer Program Documentation Conference/Meeting Papers Technical Talks/Presentations Technical Proposals Mean Q70 Median 18.7 5.0 14.3 4.0 15.0 0.0 0.7 0.0 4.3 0.0 4.1 0.0 7.8 0.0 2.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 1.5 0.0 A comparison of the data contained in tables 9 and 10 reveals more similarities than differences. The production numbers vary but the products included on both lists (products produced alone or as part of a group) are essentially identical. The average numbers of people per group for the various products produced are fairly similar in size. Survey participants were given a list of technical information products. They were asked to indicate approximately how many times in the past 6 months they had used each of them. The 10 most frequently used technical information products appear in table 1 1. A comparison of the data contained in tables 9 (production) and 11 (use) reveals two differences. First, on average, more products are used than are produced. Second, there are slight differences in the types or kinds of products produced and used. Technical Information Products -- Use, Importance, and Frequency of Use Survey participants were asked several questions designed to obtain a greater understanding of the factors affecting the use of technical reports. In this study, technical reports were placed within the context of two technical information articles. DoD, in-house, and NASA technical products: conference/meeting papers and journal reports were included in this study. Use___.Survey participants were asked if they used the aforementioned technical information products in performing their present professional duties. Table 12 includes data regarding use. 18

Original page 21

Table 10. Technical Information Products Written or Produced as Part of a Group in the Past 6 Months Information Products Drawings/Specifications Letters Memoranda Audio/Visual Material Conference/Meeting Papers In-house Technical Reports Technical Talks/Presentations Technical Manuals Computer Program Documentation Technical Proposals Average Number of In a Group People Per Group Mean (X) Median Mean (X) Median 3.4 0.0 3.7 3.0 0.6 0.0 3.3 3.0 0.7 0.0 3.7 3.0 0.8 0.0 4.4 4.0 0.6 0.0 4.5 4.0 0.7 0.0 4.5 3.0 1.4 0.0 4.7 4.0 0.4 0.0 4.2 3.5 0.9 0.0 3.4 3.0 0.9 0.0 7.3 4.5 Table 11. Technical Information Products Used in the Past 6 Months Information Products Journal Articles Memoranda Letters Trade/Promotional Literature Technical Manuals Drawings/Specifications Audio/Visual Materials Computer Program Documentation Conference/Meeting Papers In-house Technical Reports Mean (X) Median 4.2 0.0 22.7 3.0 16.6 3.0 7.7 0.0 7.5 0.0 52.0 15.0 5.2 0.0 13.6 0.0 3.9 0.0 6.2 0.0 Table 12. Technical Information Products Used Information Products Conference/Meeting Papers Journal Articles In-house Technical Reports DoD Technical Reports NASA Technical Reports 19 Percentage Number 67.1 167 70.9 178 85.9 220 40.8 97 32.5 77

Original page 22

Importance, Survey participants were aforementioned technical information products Table 13 includes data regarding the importance asked "how important is it for you to use the in performing your present professional duties?" of use technical information products. A 5-point scale (1.0 = not at all important; 5.0 = very important) was used to measure importance. Table 13. Importance of Technical Information Products Information Products Conference/Meeting Papers Journal Articles In-house Technical Reports DoD Technical reports NASA Technical reports Mean ('X') Importance Number 3.0 247 2.9 250 3.8 258 2.5 242 2.3 239 Approximately 37% (92 respondents) indicated that the use of conference/meeting papers was "very or somewhat"important to their work. Approximately 35% (87 respondents) indicated that the use of journal articles was "very or somewhat" important to their work. Approximately 69% (179 respondents) indicated that in-house technical reports were "very or somewhat" important to their work. Approximately 27% (65 respondents) and 21% (51 respondents), respectively, indicated that DoD and NASA technical reports were "very or somewhat" important to their work. Frequency of Use. Survey participants were asked to indicate the number of times each of the five technical information products had been used in a 6 month period in the performance of their professional duties (table 14). Data are presented both as means and medians. In-house Table 14. Average Number of Times (Median) Technical Information Products Used in a 6 Month Period Information Products Conference/Meeting Papers Journal Articles In-house Technical Reports DoD Technical Reports NASA Technical Reports Mean (X) Use Median 3.9 0.0 4.2 0.0 6.2 0.0 1.2 0.0 0.9 0.0 technical reports were used Q_ = 6.2) to a much greater extent than were the other technical information products. Journal articles (X = 4.2) were used to a lesser extent followed by conference/meeting papers (X = 3.9), DoD (X = 1.2), and NASA technical reports (X = 0.9). 20

Original page 23

Technical Information Products -- Factors Affecting Use Even if they did not use them, survey participants were asked if they were deciding whether or not to use any of the five technical information products in performing their present professional duties, how important each of the eight characteristics (factors) would be in making that decision. For example, respondents were asked to indicate how important the factor, "they are easy to physically obtain," would be in making a decision to use conference/meeting papers. A 5-point scale (1.0 = not at all important; 5.0 = very important) was used to measure importance. The higher the number, the greater the influence of the factor on the use of conference/meeting papers. An overall mean (X) rating was calculated. A mean CX) rating for users and non-users of each product is presented. Conference/Meeting Papers. The importance factor ratings for conference/meeting papers appear in table 15. The factors exerting the greatest influence on use were (1) relevant to my work (X = 4.5), (2) good technical quality C_ = 4.4), (3) comprehensive data and information (X = 4.3), (4) easy to use or read (X = 4.1), and (5) easy to physically obtain (X = 4.0). Table 15. Factors Affecting the Use of Conference/Meeting Papers Factors Are Easy To Physically Obtain Are Easy To Use Or Read Are Inexpensive Have Good Technical Quality Have Comprehensive Data And Information Are Relevant To My Work Source 3.7 3.6 3.7 Can Be Obtained At A Nearby Location Or Had Good Prior Experiences Using Them User Non-User Overall Rating (X) Rating (X) Rating (X) n = 167 n = 82 n = 249 4.2 3.7 4.0 4.2 3.8 4.1 3.7 3.4 3.6 4.5 4.2 4.4 4.4 4.0 4.3 4.6 4.2 4.5 3.4 3.0 3.3 Journal Articles. The importance factor ratings for journal articles appear in table 16. The factors exerting the greatest influence on use were (1) relevant to my work (X = 4.4), (2) good technical quality (X = 4.4), (3) comprehensive data and information (X = 4.2), (4) easy to use or read (X = 4.0), and (5) easy to physically obtain C_ = 3.9). 21

Original page 24

Table 16. Factors Affecting the Use of Journal Articles Factors Are Easy To Physically Obtain Are Easy To Use Or Read Are Inexpensive Have Good Technical Quality Have Comprehensive Data And Information Are Relevant To My Work Source 3.7 3.4 3.6 Can Be Obtained At A Nearby Location Or Had Good Prior Experiences Using Them User Non-User Overall Rating C_ Rating (J() Rating (X) n = 178 n= 73 n = 251 4.1 3.7 3.9 4.1 3.8 4.0 3.7 3.4 3.6 4.5 4.0 4.4 4.4 3.9 4.2 4.5 4.1 4.4 3.4 3.0 3.3 In-House Technical Reports. The importance factor ratings for in-house technical reports appear in table 17. The factors exerting the greatest influence on use were (1) relevant to my work (X = 4.4), (2) good technical quality (X = 4.4), (3) comprehensive data and information (X = 4.3), (4) easy to use or read (X = 4.1), (5) and easy to physically obtain Cx = 4.0). DoD Technical Reports. The importance factor ratings for DoD technical reports appear in table 18. The factors exerting the greatest influence on use were (1) relevant to my work (X = 4.3), (2) good technical quality (X = 4.2), (3) comprehensive data and information (X = 4.1), (4) easy to use or read Q( = 4.0), and (5) easy to physically obtain Cx = 3.9). Table 17. Factors Affecting the Use of In-house Technical Reports Factors Are Easy To Physically Obtain Are Easy To Use Or Read Are Inexpensive Have Good Technical Quality Have Comprehensive Data And Information Are Relevant To My Work Can Be Obtained At A Nearby Location Had Good Prior Experiences Using Them User Non-User Overall Rating (X) Rating Q70 Rating (X) n = 220 n =36 n = 256 4.1 3.5 4.0 4.1 3.8 4.1 3.3 3.2 3.3 4.4 4.1 4.4 4.3 3.9 4.3 4.5 4.1 4.4 3.7 3.4 3.6 3.6 3.1 3.5 22

Original page 25

Table 18. Factors Affecting the Use of DoD Technical Reports Factors Are Easy To Physically Obtain Are Easy To Use Or Read Are Inexpensive Have Good Technical Quality Have Comprehensive Data And Information Are Relevant To My Work Source 3.5 3.4 3.5 !Can Be Obtained At A Nearby Location Or Had Good Prior Experiences Using Them User Non-User Overall Rating (X) Rating (X) Rating (X) n=97 n = 141 n = 238 4.2 3.7 3.9 4.1 3.8 4.0 3.4 3.5 3.5 4.5 4.0 4.2 4.5 3.9 4.1 4.6 4.1 4.3 3.4 3.1 3.2 NASA Technical Reports. The importance factor ratings for NASA technical reports appear in table 19. The factors exerting the greatest influence on use were (1) relevant to my work (X = 4.3), (2) good technical quality (X = 4.3), (3) comprehensive data and information (X = 4.1), (4) easy to use or read (X = 4.0), and (5) easy to physically obtain _ = 3.9). Table 19. Factors Affecting the Use of NASA Technical Reports Factors Are Easy To Physically Obtain Are Easy To Use Or Read Are Expensive Have Good Technical Quality !Having Comprehensive Data And Information Are Relevant To My Work Source 3.7 3.5 3.5 Can Be Obtained At A Nearby Location Or Had Good Prior Experiences Using Them 23 User Non-User Overall Rating (X) Rating (X) Rating (X) n=77 n= 160 n = 237 4.1 3.9 3.9 4.1 4.0 4.0 3.6 3.5 3.5 4.5 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.0 4.1 4.6 4.2 4.3 3.6 3.1 3.3

Original page 26

Use of Computer and Information Technology Survey participants were asked if they use computer technology to prepare (written) technical communications. Almost all (94%) (241) of the survey respondents use computer technology to prepare (written) technical information. About 51% (131) of the respondents "always" use computer technology to prepare (written) technical information. About 98% (236) indicated that computer technology had increased their ability to communicate technical information. About 82% (198) of the respondents stated that computer technology had increased their ability to communicate technical information "a lot". From a prepared list, survey respondents were asked to indicate which computer software they used to prepare written technical communication (table 20). Word processing software was used most frequently by survey respondents, followed by spelling checkers, grammar and style checkers, and business graphics. Outliners and prompters and desktop publishing were "least frequently" used to prepare written technical communication. Table 20. Use of Computer Software to Prepare Written Technical Communication Software Percentage Number Word Processing 98.3 238 Outliners And Prompters 29.4 45 Grammar And Style Checkers 73.9 139 Spelling Checkers 92.2 213 Thesaurus 62.8 113 Business Graphics 72.1 137 Scientific Graphics 65.9 118 Desktop Publishing 49.4 82 Survey respondents were also given a list of information technologies and asked, "How do you view your use of the following information technologies in communicating technical information?" Their choices included "already use it"; "don't use it, but may in the future"; and "don't use it and doubt if I will". (See table 21.) The aerospace engineers and scientists in this study use a variety of information technologies. ranged from a high of 97% (FAX or TELEX) 24 The percentages of "I already use it" responses to a low of 13% (motion picture films).

Original page 27

A list, in descending order, follows of the information technologies most frequently used. FAX or TELEX 97% Electronic Databases 78 Electronic Mail 73 Electronic Networks 70 Video Tape 55 A list, in descending order, follows of the information technologies "that are not currently being used but may be used in the future." Video Conferencing 48% Electronic Bulletin Boards 46 Laser Disk/Video Disk/CD-ROM 39 Desktop/Electronic Publishing 36 Computer Cassettes/Cartridge Tapes 36 Table 21. Use, Nonuse, and Potential Already Information Technologies % Audio Tapes And Cassettes 26.7 Motion Picture Films 11.3 Videotape 55.2 Desktop/Electronic Publishing 53.7 Computer Cassettes/Cartridge Tapes 31.1 Electronic Mail 72.9 Electronic Bulletin Boards 40.7 FAX or TELEX 96.5 Electronic Data Bases 78.0 Video Conferencing 40.2 Micrographics And Microforms 34.7 Laser Disk/Video Disk/CD-ROM 49.0 Electronic Networks 70.0 25 Use of Information Technologies Don't Use It, Don't Use It, But May In And Doubt If Use It Future Will (n) (n) % (n) 64 22.1 53 51.3 123 26 22.2 51 66.5 153 137 31.5 78 13.3 33 130 36.4 88 9.9 24 73 36.2 85 32.8 77 183 21.1 53 6.0 15 96 46.2 109 13.1 31 245 2.8 7 0.8 2 195 18.4 46 3.6 9 99 48.4 119 11.4 28 78 32.9 74 32.4 73 117 39.3 94 11.7 28 173 22.7 56 7.3 18

Original page 28

Use and Importance of Electronic (Computer) Networks Survey participants were asked if they use electronic (computer) networks in their workplace in performing their present duties. About 77% of the respondents use electronic networks in performing their present duties and about 23% either do not use (11.5%), or do not have access to (11.5%) electronic networks. Survey respondents used electronic networks an average of 14.7 hours per week. (See table 22.) Table 22. Use of Electronic (Computer) Networks in One Week Use 0 Hours 1 - 10 Hours 11 - 25 Hours 26 - 50 Hours 51 Or More Hours Mean 14.7 Median 10.0 Percentage Number 0.5 1 53.4 108 28.6 57 15.6 31 1.0 2 Respondents who use them were also asked to rate the importance of electronic (computer) networks in performing their present duties (table 23). Importance was measured on a 5-point scale with 1 = not at all important and 5 = very important. About 80% of the respondents rated electronic networks important. About 15% rated them neither important nor unimportant, and about 5% rated electronic networks unimportant. Table 23. Importance of Electronic (Computer) Networks Importance Important Neither Important Nor Unimportant Unimportant Percentage Number 81.0 162 14.5 29 4.5 9 Respondents were asked how they accessed electronic (computer) networks (table 24): mainframe terminal, personal computers, and workstations. Access via personal computer (86%) was most frequently reported. Access via mainframe terminal and workstation was reported by less than 76% of the survey respondents. 26

Original page 29

Table 24. How Electronic(Computer)Networksare Accessed Access MainframeTerminal PersonalComputer Workstation Respondents using them were asked to indicate (computer) networks (table 25). Survey respondents to geographically distant sites (60%), information % (n) 36.8 74 85.6 172 38.3 77 the purpose(s) for which they used electronic indicated that electronic mail (87%), connect search and retrieval using WWW (52%), electronic bulletin boards or conferences (47%), and searching electronic (bibliographic) databases (46%) represented their greatest use of electronic networks. Also noticeable is the lack of electronic network use for information search/data retrieval using FTP, Gopher, and WAIS, and preparing scientific papers with colleagues at geographically distant sites. Table 25. Use of Electronic (Computer) Purpose Connect To Geographically Distant Sites Electronic Mail IElectronic Bulletin Boards Or Conferences Access/Search The Library's Catalog Order Documents From The Library Bases 45.5 8O Search Electronic (Bibliographic) Data Prepare Scientific And Papers With Sites 22.4 38 Colleagues At Geographically Distant Networks for Specific Purposes Percentage Number 60.1 113 86.7 170 47.0 87 43.8 78 28.5 51 For Information Search/Data Retrieval With The Following: FTP Gopher WAIS World Wide Web (WWW) 29.2 49 17.0 27 5.8 9 51.7 90 Survey participants who used electronic (computer) networks were asked to identify the groups with whom they exchanged messages or files (table 26). An average of 84% of the survey respondents used electronic networks to exchange files with members of their own work group and others in their organization but not in their work group. 27

Original page 30

Table26. Use of Electronic(Computer) Networksto ExchangeMessagesor Files ExchangeWith -- PercentageNumber MembersOf Own Work Group 87.2 170 OthersIn Your Organization But Not In Your Work Group 81.7 161 Others In Your Organization, Not In Your Work Group, At A Geographically Different Site Group 75.4 147 People Outside Your Work Use and Importance of Libraries/Technical 63.0 121 Information Centers Almost all of the survey respondents indicated that their organization has a library/technical information center. About 43% of the survey respondents indicated that the library/technical information center was located in the building where they worked. About 38% of the respondents indicated that the library/technical building in which they worked. Twenty percent did not have a library/technical information center. information center was located outside the of the respondents reported that their organization For 40% of the respondents, the library/technical information center was located 1 mile or less from where they worked. For about 60% of the respondents, the library/technical information center was located more than one mile from where they worked. Survey respondents were also asked if the proximity of their work setting (e.g., office to their organization's library/technical information center) affected their use of that facility (table 27). The importance of proximity was measured on a 5-point scale with 1 = not at all important and 5 = very important. About 34% of the respondents indicated that proximity was "not at all" important. About 25% indicated that proximity was neither important nor unimportant. Fortyone percent of the respondents indicated that proximity was very important. Overall, survey respondents indicated that the proximity of their work setting to the library/technical information center influenced its use. Respondents were also asked to rate the importance of the organization's library/technical information center in terms of performing their professional duties. Importance was measured on a 5-point scale with 1 = not at all important 54% of the aerospace engineers and scientists and 5 = very important (see table 28). About in the study indicated that their organization's library/technical information center was important or very important in performing their present professional duties. Approximately 29% of the survey respondents indicated that their library was neither important nor unimportant to performing their present professional duties. About 18% of respondents indicated that their organization's library/technical information center was unimportant in performing their present professional duties. 28

Original page 31

Table 27. The Influence of Proximity of the Organization's Library/Technical Information Center on Use Percentage Number Proximity Unimportant Neither Important Nor Unimportant Important Mean 3.0 Median 3.0 Table 28. Importance of the Organization's Performance of Present 33.9 57 25.0 42 41.1 69 Library/Technical Information Center to Professional Duties Importance Percentage Unimportant Neither Important Nor Unimportant Important Mean 3.7 Median 4.0 Number 17.9 30 28.6 48 53.6 90 Survey respondents were asked the number of times they had used their organization's library in the past 6 months (table 29). Survey respondents used their library/technical information center about 14 times in the past 6 months. About 20% of the survey respondents did not use their library in the past 6 months. Reasons for not using the organization's library are Table 29. Use of the Organization's Library/Technical Information Center in the Past 6 Months Number of Visits Percentage Number 0 1- 5 6- 10 11 - 25 26 - 50 51 - 94 95 or More Mean 14.3 Median 4.0 29 20.0 41 34.6 71 16.1 33 13.7 28 8.8 18 2.4 5 4.4 9

Original page 32

shown in table 30. About 95% of the respondents' information needs were more easily met some other way. About 48% indicated that "the library did not have the information they needed." Forty-four percent indicated that they had no information needs. Table 30. Reasons Respondents Did Not Use A Library During the Past 6 Months Reason I Had No Information Needs My Information Needs Were More Easily Met Some Other Way Tried The Library Once Or Twice Before But I Couldn't Find The Information I Needed Helpful 3.4 1 The Library Staff Is Not Cooperative Or The Library Staff Does Not Understand My Information Needs I Need 48.3 14 The Library Did Not Have The Information I Have My Own Personal Library And Do Not Need Another Library The Library Is Too Slow In Getting The Information I Need We Have To Pay To Use The Library We Are Discouraged From Using The Library FINDINGS Percentage Number 43.8 14 94.7 36 13.8 4 7.4 2 38.7 12 26.7 8 7.1 2 3.6 1 Readers should note that the data contained in this report reflect the responses of U.S. aerospace engineers and scientists who members of the Society of Manufacturing Engineers. The results are not generalizable to (1) U.S. aerospace engineers and scientists who are members of other professional societies, (2) all U.S. aerospace engineers and scientists, or (3) aerospace engineers and scientists employed outside of the U.S. 1. The "average" participant works in industry (100%), has a bachelor's degree (44.1%), has an average of 17.9 years of work experience in aerospace, was educated as and works as an engineer (69%, 67%), works in design/development (33%), and is male (97%). 2. Their most important job-related project, task, or problem worked on in the past 6 months was categorized as design/development (34%); 79% of the participants worked on this project, task, or problem with others. The mean number of groups involved was 3.5, and the mean number of people in a work group was 6.2. Engineering duties predominated (60%) followed by management duties (26%) in the completion of the most important job-related project, task, or problem worked on in the past 6 months. 30

Original page 33

1. A positiveandsignificant correlationwas foundbetweenthe overall complexity andtechnical uncertainty of the most important job-related project, task, or problem that respondentshad worked on in the past 6 months. 4. To completetheir most important job-related project, task, or problem, respondents first went to their personal stores of technical information organization (59%); third, spoke with colleagues fifth, used literature resources in the organization's (66%); next, spoke with coworker(s) inside the outside of the organization (38%); fourth and library (17%/11%), and sixth, spoke with a librarian/technical information specialist (7%). About 66% and 57%, respectively, did not speak to a librarian or search (or have searched) electronic data bases to complete their most important job-related project, task, or problem. 5. Approximately 33% of the respondents reported using the results of federally funded aerospace R&D in their work. Of the six sources most frequently used to find out about the results of federally funded aerospace R&D, half involve interpersonal communication and half are formal communication. Two of the five "federal initiatives" (i.e., NASA and DoD technical reports and NASA and DoD contacts) were among the six sources used most frequently to learn about the results of federally funded aerospace R&D. However, three of the five "federal initiatives" were used least often to learn about the results of federally funded aerospace R&D. 6. About 24% of the respondents had used the results of federally funded aerospace R&D to complete their most important job-related project, task, or problem during the last 6 months. About 62% of this group indicated that federally funded aerospace R&D was "important" or "very important" for completing this work. About 51% (30) of those who used the results of federally funded aerospace R&D in completing their most important job-related project, task, or problem indicated that the results were published in either a NASA or DoD technical report. 7. Of the respondents who used the results of federally funded aerospace R&D in completing their most important job-related project, task, or problem, 56% indicated that the "time and effort it took to locate the results" was a problem, and 52% reported that the "time and effort it took to obtain the results" was a problem. 8. About 92% of the respondents indicated that it was important to communicate technical information effectively; respondents spent an average of 11.0 hours per week producing written material and 12.0 hours per week communicating information orally. Over the past 5 years approximately 72% have increased the amount of time they spend communicating information to others. Survey respondents reported spending an average of 9.9 hours per week working with written information received from others and an average of 7.6 hours per week working with information received orally from others. About 69% of the respondents indicated that the amount of time they spend working with technical information received from others has increased as they have advanced professionally. 9. About 35% of the respondents reported that all of the written technical communications they prepared involved writing alone. About 52% indicated that their written technical communi- 31

Original page 34

cationsinvolvedwriting with one other person. communications involved writing with a group About 43% indicated that their written technical of two to five people. About 23% indicated that their written technical communications involved writing with a group of more than five people. 10. In terms of the perceived productivity of collaborative writing, more of the respondents indicated that writing with a group is more productive than writing alone. About 48% indicated that a group is more productive and about 34% indicated that a group is less productive. About 18% indicated that a group is about as productive as writing alone. 11. A comparison of the technical information products produced and used reveals that on average, the survey respondents used more products than they produce. There are also slight differences in the types of technical information 12. Survey respondents were asked to indicate products produced and used. their use of and the importance to them of five technical information products. In-house technical reports were most frequently used (X = 6.2) and were rated most important (X = 3.8). DoD and NASA technical reports were used by about 41% and 33% of the respondents and the mean importance ratings were 2.5 and 2.3 respectively. 13. Both users and non-users of the five information products were asked to indicate about the importance of eight factors in deciding whether to use any of the five information products. Overall, the factors exerting the greatest influence on decisions to use products follow. Conference/meeting papers -- (1) relevant to my work, (2) good technical quality, (3) comprehensive data and information, (4) easy to use or read, and (5) easy to physically obtain. Journal articles -- (1) relevant to my work, (2) good technical quality, (3) comprehensive data and information, (4) easy to use or read, and (5) easy to physically obtain. In-house technical reports -- (1) relevant to my work, (2) good technical quality, (3) comprehensive data and information, (4) easy to use or read, and (5) easy to physically obtain. DoD technical reports -- (1) relevant to my work, (2) good technical quality, (3) comprehensive data and information, (4) easy to use or read, and (5) easy to physically obtain. NASA technical reports -- (1) relevant to my work, (2) good technical quality, (3) comprehensive data and information, (4) easy to use or read, and (5) easy to physically obtain. 14. About 94% of the survey participants used computer technology to prepare written technical communications; about 98% of them indicated ability to communicate technical information. that computer technology had increased their 15. Word processing and spelling checkers were the computer software used most often in preparing written technical information. 32

Original page 35

1. FAX or TELEX, electronicdatabases,electronicmail, electronicnetworks,andvideotape wereusedmostfrequently by surveyrespondents. 17. About 77% of the survey participantsusedelectronicnetworksin performing their present professionalduties;they useelectronicnetworksan averageof 14.7 hoursper week; and about 81% ratedthem importantin termsof performingtheir presentprofessionalduties. 18.About 86%of the respondentsaccesselectronicnetworksvia personalcomputer;about87% useelectronicnetworksfor electronicmail. 19. Survey respondents(54%) indicated that the organization's library/technical information centerwas importantin performing their presentprofessionalduties. 20. On average,survey respondentsvisited their organization's library/technical information center14times in a 6 monthperiod;surveyrespondentsindicatedthat the proximity of the work settingto the organization'slibrary/technicalinformation centerdid influenceits use. 21. The most common reasonsfor not using the organization'slibrary/technical information centerincluded "my information needswere moreeasily met someother way," "library did not havethe information I needed,"and "I haveno information needs." 33

Original page 36

REFERENCES Adam, R. "Pulling the Minds of Social Scientists Together: Towards a 1975 Science Information System." International Social Journal 27(3): 519-531. Allen, T. J. Managing the Flow of Technology: Technology Transfer and the 1977 Dissemination of Technological Information Within the R&D Organization. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Auger, C. P. Use of Technical 1975 Books. Reports Literature. Hamden, CT: Archon Ballard, S., et. al. Innovation Through Technical and Scientific Information: 1989 Government and Industry Cooperation. Westport, CT: Quorum Books. Ballard, S., et. al. Improving the Transfer and Use of Scientific and Technical 1986 Information. The Federal Role: Volume 2 - Problems and Issues in the Transfer and Use of STI. Washington, DC: National Science Foundation. (Available from NTIS, Springfield, VA; PB- 87-14923.) Berul, L. H., et. al. DoD User-Needs 1965 Study, Phase 1. Volume 1: Management Report, Conduct of the Study, and Analysis of Data. Philadelphia, PA: Auerbach Corporation. (Available from NTIS, Springfield, VA; AD-615 501. Beyer, J. M. "The Utilization and H.M. Trice Process: A Conceptual Framework and Synthesis of Empirical Findings." Administrative Science Quarterly 27: 1982 591-622. Bikson, T. K., Scientific and Technical Information Transfer: Issues and Option. B. E. Quint, and Washington, DC: L. L. Johnson NTIS, Springfield, 1984 2131.) National Science Foundation. (Available fi'om VA; PB-85-150357; also available as Rand Note Branscomb, L. G. "America's Emerging Technology Policy." Minerva 1992 (August): 317-336. Branscomb, L. G. "Toward a U.S. 30:3 Technology Policy." Issues in Science and 1991 Technology 7:4 (Fall): 50-55. 34

Original page 37

David, P. A. "Technology Diffusion, Public Policy, and Industrial Competi- 1986 tiveness." In The Positive Sum Strategy: Harnessing Technology for Economic Growth. R. Landau and N. Rosenberg, eds. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Eveland, J. D. Scientific and Technical Information Exchange: Issues and 1987 Findings. Washington, DC: National Science Foundation. (Not available from NTIS.) Flanagan, J. C. "The Critical Incident Technique." Psychology Bulletin 51:4 1954 (July): 327-358. Fry, B. M. Library Organization and Management of Technical Reports 1953 Literature. Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press. Gibb, J. M. and "Better Fate for the Grey, or Non-Conventional, Literature." E. Phillips Journal of Communication Studies 1: 225-234. 1979 Godfrey, L. E. and Dictionary of Report H.F. Redman Association. 1973 Goldhor, R. S. and "University-to-Industry Series Codes. (2nd ed.) NY: Special Libraries Advanced Technology Transfer: A Case R. T. Lund Study." Research Policy 12: 121-152. 1983 Lancaster, F. W. Critical Incident Techniques. Urbana IL: University of Illinois 1978 Graduate School of Library and Information Science. Mathes, J. C. and Designing TechnicaI D. W. Stevenson 1976 Reports. Indianapolis, IN: Bobbs-Merill. McClure, C. R. "The Federal Technical Report Literature: Research Needs and 1988 Issues." Government Information Quarterly. 5(1): 27-44. McGowan, R. P. and "Strategies for Information Management: The Administrator's S. Loveless Perspective." Public 1981 Mowery, D. C. "Economic Theory 1983 Sciences 16: 27-43. 35 Administration Review 41(3): 331-339. and Government Technology Policy." Policy

Original page 38

Mowery, D. C. and "The Influence of Market Demand Upon Innovation: A Critical N. Rosenberg Review of Some Recent Empirical Studies." Research Policy 8(2): 1979 102-153. National Academy Scientific and Technical Communication: A Pressing National of Sciences - Problem and Recommendations for Its Solution. Report by the National Academy Committee on Scientific and Technical Communication. of Engineering Washington, DC: National Academy Sciences; AKA the SATCOM 1969 Report. Pinelli, T. E. "The Information-Seeking Habits and Practices of Engineers." 1991 Science and Technology Libraries 11(3): 5-25. Pinelli, T. E. The Relationship Between the Use of U.S. Government Technical 1991 Reports by U.S. Aerospace Engineers and Scientists and Selected Institutional and Sociometric Variables. Washington, DC: National Aeronautics and Space Administration. NASA TM- 102774, January. N9118898.) Pinelli, T. E., "The NASA/DoD (Available from NTIS, Springfield, VA; Aerospace Knowledge diffusion Research J. M. Kennedy, and Project." Government Information Quarterly 8(2): 219-233. R. O. Barclay 1991 Pinelli, T. E., "Aerospace Knowledge Diffusion Research." Worm Aerospace J. M. Kennedy, Technology "91: R. O. Barclay, and Development and T. F. White 1991 The International Review of Aerospace Design 1(1): 31-34. President's Special Scientific and Technological Communication in the Government. Assistant for Science Washington, DC: and Technology Report. 1962 Government Printing Office; AKA the Crawford Redman, H. F. "Technical Reports: Problems and Predictions." Arizona Librarian 1965/1966 23: 11-17. 36

Original page 39

Roberts,E. B. "Strategies for Improving ResearchUtilization." Technology and A. L. Frohman Review 80 (March/April): 32-39. 1978 Rohde, Nancy F. "Information Needs." In Advances in Librarianship, Vol. 14. W. 1986 Simonton, ed. NY: Academic Press, 49-73. Ronco, P. G., et. al. Characteristics of Technical Reports That Affect Reader Behavior: 1964 A Review of the Literature. Boston, MA: Tufts University, Institute for Psychological Research. (Available from NTIS, Springfield, VA PB-169 409.) Shuchman, H. L. Information Transfer in Engineering. Glastonbury, CT: The 1981 Futures Group. Smith, R. S. "Interaction Within the Technical Report Community." Science 1981 and Technology Libraries 1(4): 5-18. Subramanyam, K. Scientific and Technical Information Resources. NY: Marcel 1981 Dekker. U.S. Department Glossary of Information Handling. Defense Logistics Agency, of Defense Defense Documentation Center. Cameron Station, Alexandria, VA. 1964 Williams, F. and Technology Transfer: A Communication Perspective. Newbury D. V. Gibson Park, CA: Sage Publications. 1990 37

Original page 40

APPENDIX A: PROJECT FACT SHEET NASA/DoD AEROSPACE KNOWLEDGE DIFFUSION RESEARCH PROJECT Fact Sheet The process of producing, transferring, and using scientific and technical information (STI), which is an essential part of aerospace research and development (R&D), can be defined as Aerospace Knowledge Diffusion. Studies tell us that timely access to STI can increase productivity and innovation and help aerospace engineers and scientists maintain and improve their professional skills. These same studies indicate, however, that we know little about aerospace knowledge diffusion or about how aerospace engineers and scientists find and use STI. To learn more about this process, we have organized a research project to study knowledge diffusion. Sponsored by NASA and the Department of Defense (DoD), the NASA/DoD Aet'ospace Knowledge Diffusion Research Project is being conducted by researchers at the NASA Langley Research Center, the Indiana University Center for Survey Research, and Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute. This research is endorsed by several aero- space professional societies including the AIAA, RAeS, and DGLR and has been sanctioned by the AGARD and AIAA Technical Information Panels. This 4-phase project is providing descriptive and analytical data about the flow of STI at the individual, organizational, national, and international levels. It is examining both the channels used to communicate STI and the social system of the aerospace knowledge diffusion process. Phase 1 investigates the information-seeking habits and practices of U.S. aerospace engineers and scientists, in particular their use of government-funded aerospace STI. Phase 2 examines the industry-government interface and emphasizes the role of the information intermediary in the knowledge diffusion process. Phase 3 concerns the academic-government interface and emphasizes the information intermediaryfaculty-student interface. Phase 4 explores the information-seeking behaviors of non-U.S, aerospace engineers and scientists from Western European nations, India, Israel, Japan, and the former Soviet Union. The results of this research project will help us to understand the flow of STI at the individual, organizational, national, and international levels. The findings can be used to identify and correct deficiencies; to improve access and use; to plan new aerospace STI systems; and should provide useful information to R&D managers, information managers, and others concerned with improving access to and utilization of STI. These results will contribute to increasing productivity and to improving and maintaining the professional competence of aerospace engineers and scientists. The results of our research are being shared freely with those who participate in the study. Dr. Thomas E. Pinelli Dr. John M. Kennedy Rebecca O. Barclay Mail Stop 180A Center for Survey Research Knowledge Transfer International NASA Langley Research Center Indiana University Hampton, VA 23681-0001 Bloomington, IN 47405 (804) 864-2491 (812) 855-2573 Fax (804) 864-8311 Fax (812) 855-2818 T.E.Pinelli@iare.nasa.gov kennedyJ@indiana.edu 462 Washington Street Portsmouth, VA 23704 (804) 397-4644 Fax (804) 397-4635 barelay@infi.net 38

Original page 41

APPENDIX B: SURVEY PHASE 1 OF THE NASA/DOD AEROSPACE KNOWLEDGE DIFFUSION RESEARCH PROJECT Technical Communications INSTRUMENT in Aerospace: A Manufa_g and Production Perspective The SME Study SPONSORED BY THE NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION AND THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE WITH THE COOPERATION OF INDIANA 39 UNIVERSITY

Original page 42

The first Stoup of questions ask about your use of technical information. I° In yoer work, how imlasmat is it for you to cammua/ca_ (eg. produce written matemls or oral disenssions) te_akal infonaation e_ec_dy? (Circte amber) Not at all impo_at 1 2 3 4 5 Very Importaat 2. In the past 6 months, about how many hours did you spend each week communicating (producing) technical informalion? (Output) hours per week writiag hours per week communicating orally 3. Compared to 5 years ago, how has the amount of time you spend " "g technical iaf0nnatioa changed? (Circle ONE umber) 1 Increased 2 Slayed the same 3 Decreased 4. In the past 6 mouths, about how many horns did you spend each week workiag with technical informatiou rece/m/from _,ers? (Input) horns per week working with wriuen iaformatioa horns per week nmeiviag informatioa caUy 5. As you have advanced pmfessiomlly, how has the anweat of lime you spend working with tedmical iaformation recdved from others changed?. (C.kde ONE nmaber) 1 Incatased 2 Slayed the same 3 Dea_tsed 6. In the past 6 months, about what peaxa_tage of your written technical communications involved: Writiag alone % _ (If 100%, go to question 9.) Writiag with one other peasea Wriliag with a groep of 2 to 5 people % Writing with a groep of more thaa 5 people 100 7. In general, do you fiad writiag as part of a group more or less prodoc_e (i.e.., lmatucing more wrtaen products or better wriuen laeducts) than writiag alone? (Circle ONE amber) A group is/ess prodoctive Iium writiag alone A gnmp is about as productive as wriliag alone A group is more ptoduc_e thaa writiag alone Difficult m judgg ao experleace preparing techaical information 8. In the past 6 months, did you work with the same group of people when inoducing written technical infonmatiou? (Ckcle ONE umber) 1 Yes • About how many people were in the group? nmnber of people 2 No • With about how many groups did you work? umber of groups About how many people were in each group? number of people 40

Original page 43

1. Approximately how many times in the past 6 mouths did you _ or prepare the following alone or in a gzoup? (If in a group, how many people were in each group?) T'nnes Wrote or Pro mcd in Past 6 Months Average N_ of Alone In a Group People in Group a. Abstracts b. Journal Articles c. Coafe_eacc/Meeting Papers d. Trade/Promotional Literature e. tioes L Aud/Visual Ma_ g, Leuets h. Memoraada j. Techaical Manuals ic Computer ProgramDocumeatation L In-house Tectmical Reports m. DoD Tedmical Repom a. NASA Techaical Rcpm_ o. Technical TaEgs/Ptcsentatioas 10. Approximately how many times in the past 6 months did you use the following as part of your professional duties? Times Used in Past 6 Months a. AbsUacts b. Journal Articles c. Confctcacc/Meetiag Papers d. Trad_onal Literature e_ /Specif_tions L Audio/Visual Materials g. I.¢uets h. Memomada i. Techak Proposals j. Tect_zt Maaeats k. ComputerProgramDocum,-,,_,Oon L In-hoese Technical Reports m. DoD Technical Reports n. NASA Technical Reports o. Techaical Talks_tatious few questions about computer Do you use computer technology to prepare technical information? (Circle ONE number) 1 2 Usually _ Go to question 12 3 Sometimes ] 4 Never _ _ Go to question 14 12. Has computer technology increased your ability to oommunicate technical information? (Cirde ONE number) 1 Yes, a lot 2 Yes, a little 3 No 41

Original page 44

1. Do you me amyof the following soflwa_ w prepare wriaen le,dmical ormalioa? (Ci© the te mmber for each) Yes Word pmcessing packages .......... 1 Oulline and pmmplcm ............ 1 Gnmsmar and style checkcss ........ 1 Spen_ ectm ................. 1 Thesaurus ...................... 1 Baskse gmpifics ................ 1 Scimlific graphics ................ 1 Desktop pablishers ................ 1 No 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 14. How do you view your USE of the following elecaoakrmfmmation technologies in commlicatiag tedmicai tion? (Circle the appropriate nmmb for each) Already Iafonuae_n Technologies Use Aadio mpes and _ ........... 1 Mo_ion piceue films .............. 1 Videotape ..................... 1 Desi_pMecuonic publishi_ ........ 1 Campetercassette/carUidgetapes ..... 1 Elecaeaicmaa .................. 1 Elecaea_ bulletmboards........... 1 FAX orTEIJ_ ................. 1 EI_ databases .............. 1 Videoceafem_-_ ............... I Micmgmphics and microforms ....... 1 Las_ disc/videodisc/CD-ROM ....... 1 Elecuoak mswoxks ............... 1 Dol't ase Doa't use bat may in and doubt the falme if I ws_! 2 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 5. At your woAplace, do you use electronic networks in performing your pmscat duties? (Curie ONE number) 1 Yes 23 NoNo, because I do not access to etectcoaic ne_'wo_rks_ • Go to quesfioa 16 ) Go to questims 21 At your wostplace, hew do you access ek.ctmak networks? (Circle all that apply) 1 By using a mainframe tcsminal 2 By using a pasem] coawa_ 3 By using a workstation 17. How importaat is the use of dectronic netwcn_ in perfoauing your present duties? (CArrie number) Not at all important 1 2 3 4 5 Very Important 18. In the past week, about how many boers did you USE your eleclronic networks? Hours in the past week 42

Original page 45

1. Do you me elec_mmic aetwofl_ for the followiag pmlmses? (Circle appropriate number for each) Yes No 1 To connect to geographicallydistantsites ......... 1 2 2 For electronicmail ................... I 2 3 For electronicbulletinboards or conferences ........ I 2 4 To access/senrchthe library'scatalogue .......... I 2 5 To order documents from the library ........... i 2 6 To searchelectronic(bibliographic)databases ....... 1 2 7 To prepare scientificand technicalpapers with colleaguesat geographicallydistantsites .......... I 2 8 For informationsearch and data retrievalwith the following: FTP " Gopher ....................... WAIS ........................ World Wide Web (WWW) ............... De yea I_E el_c aetwerks to commeaieate with: Members of yo_ work group ................................. Other people in your organization at the SAME geographi_tl site who are NOT in yore work group .......................... Other people in your organization at geographically DIFFE]RENT sites who are NOT in your work group People outside your work group ............................... I 2 I 2 I 2 I 2 Yes No 1 2 1 2 .............. 1 2 1 2 We would abe lle to imew about year use of a library er teelmieal iformafiea eeater. 21. Does your mganizalioa/company have a h'brary/technical 1 Yes, in my betiding -----=_Go to question 22 2 Yes, but not in my betiding _ miles 3 No _ Go to question 26 information cotter? (Circle ONE number) minute walk _ Go to question 22 22. Ia the past 6 months, how often did you USE your organizatiou's lilrary/technical information center? Number of times ia past 6 months If "0" thaes m" yea did aot me yem" ergaaimtion's gbrary, go to n 25. 23. To what exteat does the proximity of yoer work setting (e.g., office) to your organization's h'brary_cal iaformatioa ceatet affect your use of it? (Circle ONE nmnber) Not at an important 1 2 3 4 5 Very Important 24. In terms of performing your present professional duties, how impomnt is your organization's lanary/techaical iaformalion center? (Circte ONE, amber) Not at all imporumt 1 2 3 4 43 5 Ve Imptmaat._Go to question 26

Original page 46

1. Which of the fol_ statememlsdescn1_ your reasons fornot using a h_ dur_ the past6 m_? (Circleappropriatenumbe: for each) I had no infonmalioe needs ................................... Yes No 1 2 My iaformalion needs were more easily met some othe: way ........... 1 2 Tried the h-ecm7 once of twice before but I couldn't find the informalion I aeeded ................................ 1 2 The lflmuy slaH is not cooperalive or helpful ...................... 1 2 1"he h'bmry slaH does not uademtand my information aeeds ............ 1 2 The h3xaxy did not have the information I needed ................... 1 2 The hl0auy is too slow ia geuiag the infmmalion I need .............. 1 2 I have my own pezsomd lflmu7 and do not need anothe: lanary ......... 1 2 We have to pay to use the lflmm7 .............................. 1 2 We are discouraged titan usig the library ........................ 1 2 l_ase tea w abmt yem- use of specific mlaafien lmNiaets. 26. Do you use the followinginformalion productsin perfo_ig your presentprofessionalduties? (Circleappropriatenumber foreach) Coefexence/Meeting papers ................................... Journal articles ........................................... Tedmical reports - Ia-house .................................. Tedmical ats - DoD ..................................... Techaical reporm - NASA ................................... Yes No 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 27. In terms ofperfonniag your present professional duties, how imporlam is each of the following information sources: (Circle appropriate number for each) Cc_enmce./Meefiag papers ....................... Journal artides ............................... Tedhnical reports - In-house ...................... Technical reports - DoD ......................... Tectmkal reports - NASA ....................... Not at all Very hnpomat lmpomat 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 28. If you were deciding whether or not to use emferuKe/meetmg papers in your work, how impmlant would the f facto be? (Circte appropm_ number) Axe easy to physically obmi ..................... Axe easy to me or read ......................... Axe iaexpeasive ............................... Have good tedsaical quality ...................... Have mmlnehensJve dam and iafonnafion ............ Are relevant to my work ........................ Can be oblained at a hereby location or source ......... Had good prior experien_ using them ............... Not at all Very Impomat hnpomnt 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 44

Original page 47

2_. If you were decidiag whether or not to use journal articles in your work, how important would the following factors be? (Ckcle appropriate nmnber) Not at all Very Important Xmpomat Are easy to physically obtain ..................... Axe easy to use or read ......................... Are iaexlgasive ............................... Have good technical quality ...................... Have comprehensive data aad iafogmatic_ ............ Are relevaat to my work ........................ Can be obtaiaed at a nearby location or source ......... Had good prior experieace usiag them ............... I 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 3O. If you were deciding whether or not to use ia-hoese technical reports in your work, how important would the following factors be? (Circle appropriate amber) Not at all Very _npomut huporumt Are easy to physically obtain ..................... Are easy to use or read ......................... Are iaexpeasive ............................... Have good techaical quality ...................... Have comprehea_e data and information ............ Are relevant to my work ........................ Can be obtained at a nearby location or source ......... Had good prior experieace using them ............... 3L If you were deciding whether or not to use DoD technical following facu_s be? (Circle appropriate number) Not at all Very Important Important Are easy to physically obtain ..................... Are easy to use or read ......................... Are inexpensive ............................... Have good technical quality ...................... Have comprehensive data and information ............ Are x_levant to my work .......... ,.............. Can be obtained at a nearby location or somme ......... Had good prior experieace using them ............... 45 1 2 3 4 5 i 2 3 4 5 I 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 reports in your work, how important would the 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3, 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5

Original page 48

3?- If you were ci wbe_ or not to use NASA _ n_rls m your work, how i_m would Not at all Very tmpomnt pemnt Are easy to lJysicallyobtaia ..................... 1 2 3 4 5 Are easy to me or x_ad ......................... Are_e ............................... Have good tedmical quality ...................... Have comprelg_ive data and iafotmation ............ Are relevant to my work ........................ 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 Can be obtained at a nearby location or somce ......... 1 2 3 4 5 Had good prior experieace using them ............... 1 2 3 4 5 33. (Evea if you doa't use them-.) What is your opinion of ceafereaee er meeting papers? (Ckde Number) They are easy to physically obtain 1 2 3 They are easy to use or read 1 2 3 They are inexpensive 1 2 3 They are of ood technical quality 1 2 3 They have complehensive data and i- formaticm 1 2 3 They are relevaat to my work 1 2 3 They clm be obtained at a aeadbv location or source 1 2 3 I've had ood prior experiences asiag them 1 2 3 4 5 They age difficult to physically obtain 4 5 They are dig/icult to use or read 4 5 They are 4 5 They are of tmor teckmkal quality They have in(xauplete data 4 5 and informafiea 4 5 They are irrelevantto my we_k They must be obtained from a 4 5 distant location or source I've had bad prior experiences 4 5 using them 34. (Evea if ym don't use them.) What is your opiaioa ofjmtnud articles? (CArrie Number) They are ea to physically obtain 1 2 3 They are ea.w to use or read 1 2 3 They are iaexpeasive 1 2 3 They are of Eood tedmical quality 1 2 3 They have campt_heasive data aad htformatiea 1 2 3 They are relevant to my work 1 2 3 They can be obtained at a aea_v localioa or source 1 2 3 I've had good prior expeaieaccs using them 1 2 3 4 5 They are difficult to physically obtain 4 5 They age difficult to use or read 4 5 They age expemive 4 5 They are of _ technical quality They have incomplete data 4 5 and iafmmatioa 4 5 They are brdevant to my work They must be obtained from a 4 5 distant location or som I've had bad inior experieaces 4 5 .s_g them 46

Original page 49

1. (Even if yoe don't use them...) What is your opinion of ta-keuse teelmkal reports? (Circle Number) They are easy to physically obtain 1 2 3 4 They are easy to use or read 1 2 3 4 They are inexpensive 1 2 3 4 They are of good technical quality 1 2 3 4 They have compreheasive data aad information 1 2 3 4 They are relevaat to my work 1 2 3 4 They can be obtaiaed at a nead_v location or source 1 2 3 4 I've had good prior u_mg them 1 2 3 4 5 They ate difficult to physically obtain 5 They are difficult to use or read 5 They are ex'lgns_e 5 They are of _ technical quality They have incomplete data 5 and iaformalio_ 5 They are irrelevant to my work They must be obta/ned from a 5 distant location or source I've had bad prior experieaces 5 emgthem 36. (Evea if you don't use them_.) What is your opinion of DoD tedmical reports? (Cirde Number) They are easy to physically obtain 1 2 3 4 They are easy to use or read 1 2 3 4 They are inexpensive 1 2 3 4 They are of ood technical quality 1 2 3 4 They have comprehensive data and information 1 2 3 4 They are relevant to my work 1 2 3 4 They caa be obtaiaed at a nea_y location or source 1 2 3 4 I've had ood pri expertenc ustag e_n 1 2 3 4 5 They are difficult to physically obtain 5 They are difficult to use or read 5 They ate_ 5 They are of _ tedmkal quality They have incomplete data 5 and information 5 They are irrelevant to my work They must be obtained f3_3m a 5 distan....! location or source I've had bad prior experiences 5 usmg them 3?. (Even if you don't use them...) What is your opinion of NASA reports? (Cirde Nmnbet) They are easy to physically obtain 1 2 3 4 They are easy to me or read 1 2 3 4 They are iaexpeasive 1 2 3 4 They are of ood technical quality 1 2 3 4 They have compreheasive dala am/informatioa 1 2 3 4 They are relev_t to my work 1 2 3 4 They can be obtained at a nea_v localion or source I 2 3 4 I've had _ prior experiences using them 1 2 3 4 47 5 They are difficult to physically obtain 5 They are difficult to use or read 5 They are expensive 5 They are of _ teckni quality They have incomplete data 5 and information 5 They are irrelevant to my work They must be obtaiaed fix_m a 5 distaa_..._tlocation or source I've had bad prior experiences 5 usiag them

Original page 50

Next,we would la_ete Imow about thework you do. 38. Think of the mast/mpeeUmtjob-related project, tas_ or lu_oblemyou haveworked emin the past6 months. Which categorybest _ this work? (C.bde only ONE number) 1 Sesem_ (eie_basicorapptied) 2 Dm_p/Develot_em 3 o ° 4 Omauy Asmnmee...eu,t 5 Computer Ap#c_tims 6 M_ateat (e.g., ptumg, budgeen and mumag .at.c) 7 39. How would you descr_ the overall complexity of the teckaical project, task, or problem you categecized tmQuesl/on 38?. (Curie ONE number) Very Simple 1 2 3 4 4_ How would ycm rate the amotmt of tedmical _ 5 Very Complex th=t you fat_ whea yoe stanet the tectmiml l_ect, task, or problem categorized in Question 38?. (Circle ONE number) Little Uncertabm_y 1 2 3 4 5 Great U_ty 41. While you were involved in this tedmicaI project, task, or problem, did you work aloae or wit other? 1 Alone 2 With others ) I.n how many gx_mps did you work? About how many people were in each group? 42. W'nich one of the following best _ the k_is of duties you perfcqrmedwha© wozking _ _ _ project, ask, or lm_iem categorized in Questi_ 38?. (Circle ONE number) 1 F.mgtaeer_ 2 Sckace 3 haagemem 4 other(specify): 43. What steps did you follow to get the information you needed for this project, task, or problem? [ptease _ e,e items (e.g., #1, #2, #3) aad pet an X bes_ e :ps yoe did aotme.] Used my pen_mal store of tectmical iafmmatim, indud sources I keep in my o/flee Spoke with _ or people m/de my mganization Spoke with colleagues outside my mganization Spoke witha _ ortectmicalinformationspecialist Searched (orhad someone searc for me) an elec:mnic (b_liographic) data base in the h-mary Used liter_lnre resources (e.g., _cal Used none of the above steps reports) found in my organization's library 48

Original page 51

1. Do you USE the results of federally-fended aerospace R&D i_ your work? (Circle ONE number) I Yes 2 No 45. Did you USE the results of federally-funded aerospace R&D in completing the technical project, task, or problem you categorized in Question 38? (Circle ONE number) 1 Yes 2 No ) Go to question 50 46. How tmpotlaat were the results of fedemUy-funded R&D in completing the tedmical project, task, or problem you categorized in Question 38? (Circle ONE number) Not at all important 1 2 3 4 5 Very Important 47. Were any of these results published in either a NASA or DoD technical report?. (Circle ONE number) 1 Yes 2 No 48. From which of the following sources did you learn about/oblam the results of the federally-funded aerospace R&D you used in completing the technical project, task, or problem? (Circle appropmte number for each) Yes Coworkers inside my organization ............ 1 Colleagues outside my organization ........... 1 NASA and DoD contacts .................. 1 Publications such as NASA _/'AR ............ 1 NASA and DoD sponsored and cosponsored conferences aad workshops ........ 1 NASA and DoD tetSmical reports ............ I Professional aad society journals ............. 1 Lt'btagiaas inside my ergaaizatious ............ 1 Trade jouraals .......................... 1 Searches of computerized data bases .......... 1 Professional and society meetings ............ 1 Visits to NASA and DoD facilities ........... 1 No 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 49. Which, if any, of the following problems were associated with using these results? (Chock ALL that apply) The lime and effort it took to locate the results The lime and effort it Wok to phys/cally obtain the results The accmacy, precision, and reliablTfity of the results The legibility or readability of the results The organization or format of the results The dism'bution limitations or secarity restrictions of the results 49 Over P!ease

Original page 52

Sm_y 50. I Male 2 Female 51. Pleaseiadi_te the highestcollegedegree you hold. 1 No ce41egedegree 4 Doctmate 2 Bachelors 5 Other (specify): 3 .Master's 52. Years of aerie'pace work : ycil 53. of the followingbest _ your prima_ _ dnties? (Cirde ONE nunmber_ 1 Research 6 Flight Test 2 Admini_aatlm/Mmmseme_ 7 Marketing/Sales 3 Quality Assmmce/C_ul_ 8 Service/Maintenance 4 Design/Devdopment 9 Private Consultant 5 Manufacu_g/Pmducfim 10 Other 54. Was your academic prepmfien as an: (Circle ONE number) 2 Sciemist 3 (spe):. (specify): 55. In your present job, do you couside_ yourself primar_y an: (Cite ONE number) 1 ngt_r 2 Scientist 3 Other (specify): 56. Is any of your cxment work funded by the fedenl government? (Ckde ONE number) 1 Yes 2 No 3 Don't know THANK YOU.' to: NASAfDoD Aerwpaee Kmwledse I}iffwien Resem Project _A Laagley P.mm_h Center Mai Stop 1NA Hamptomb VA 23(,81-@001 50

Original page 53

Original page 54

REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE FormApproved OMB No. 0704-0188 PuUic reporbng burden for this co_lectk_ of information is es_ to average 1 hour per response, including the time for revie_ng instructions, searching e_'ting data sources gathering alld maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing e ¢dlection of ird_mati(. Send comments regarding ff'tis burden estimate or any other aspect of thi,. collection of informabon, including suggesbo_s for reducing Itts burden, to Washington Headquarters Services, Directocate for Irdormatior_ Operaons and Reports, 1215 Jeff_so¢ Davis Highway, Suite 1204. AJ'lington, VA 22202-4...'..'..'..'..'.Q,andto the Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Redc.,ction Project (0704-0188). Washington, DC 20503. 1, AGENCY USE ONLY (Leave blank) 2. REPORT DATE July 1996 4. TITLE AND SU_LE 3. REPORTTYPE AND DATES COVERED Technical Memorandum 5. FUNDING NUMBERS The Technical Communication Practices of U.S. Aerospace Engineers and Scientists: Results of the Phase 1 Mail Survey--Manufacturing and Pro- WU 505-90 duction Perspective* S. AUTHOR(S) Thomas E. Pinelli, Rebecca O. Barclay, and John M. Kennedy 7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) NASA Langley Research Center Hampton, VA 23681-0001 9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) National Aeronautics and Space Administration Washington, DC 20546-0001 11. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES *Report number 43 under the NASA/DoD Aerospace 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NUMBER 10. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY REPORT NUMBER NASA TM-110236 Knowledge Diffusion Research Project. Thomas E. Pinelli: Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA; Rebecca O. Barclay: Knowledge Transfer International, Portsmouth, VA John M. Kennedy: Indiana University, Bloomington, IN. 1211. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT Unclassified-Unlimited Subject Category 82 13. AuI$T-HACl" (Maximum 200 words) 12b. DISTRIBUTION CODE The U.S. government technical report is a primary means by which the results of federally funded research and development (R&D) are transferred to the U.S. aerospace industry. However, little is known about this information product in terms of its actual use, importance, and value in the transfer of federally funded R&D. To help establish a body of knowledge, the U.S. government technical report is being investigated as part of the NASA/DoD Aerospace Knowledge Diffusion Research ProjecL In this report, we summarize the literature on technical reports and provide a model that depicts the transfer of federally funded aerospace R&D via the U.S. government technical report. We present results from our investigation of aerospace knowledge diffusion vis-_i-vis the U.S. government technical report, and present the results of research that investigated aerospace knowledge diffusion vis-i-vis the technical communication practices of U.S. aerospace engineers and scientists who were members of the Society of Manufacturing Engineers. 14. SUBJECI I I::HMS 15. NUMBER OF PAGES Knowledge diffusion; Aerospace engineers and scientists; Information use; and U.S. 51 government technical reports 17. SECURITY CLASSlRCATION 18. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF REPORT OFTHIS PAGE Unclassified Unclassified NSN 7540-01-280-5500 16. PRICE CODE A04 19. SECURrrY CLASSIFICATION 20. LIMITATION OF ABSTRACT OF ABSTRACT Unclassified Standard Form 296 (Rev. 2-89) Prescfib _y ANSi Std. Z39-lS 298-102